NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 580M and Quadro K4000M are both end-of-life MXM modules aimed at laptops, but they target different users. The GTX 580M is a Fermi 2.0-era consumer part, while the K4000M is a Kepler-based professional workstation GPU. Benchmark data shows a single OpenCL result favoring the GTX 580M by 6.7%, but the underlying specifications tell a more nuanced story about suitability for specific tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear, if narrow, victory for the GeForce GTX 580M in raw compute performance. In the sole head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 580M scores 6389 against the K4000M’s 5986, a 6.7% advantage. This makes the GTX 580M the better choice for any workload that leans heavily on general-purpose GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering or physics simulations. Its higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs. 89.60 GB/s) reinforces this edge, providing faster data movement for compute-heavy tasks.

The Quadro K4000M, despite losing the compute benchmark, wins in areas not captured by that single test. It has 4 GB of VRAM, double the GTX 580M’s 2 GB, which is critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, or multi-monitor professional visualizations. The K4000M also boasts 960 shading units versus 384, and 80 texture mapping units versus 64, giving it a theoretical pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s and texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s. These figures outpace the GTX 580M’s 9.920 GPixel/s and 39.68 GTexel/s, indicating the K4000M is better suited for geometry-heavy and texture-bound professional applications. Additionally, the K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 580M has no Vulkan support listed, making the Quadro the only choice for modern Vulkan-based software.

The Verdict

From the data, the GTX 580M is the pick for users who prioritize raw OpenCL compute performance and do not need large frame buffers. Its 6.7% benchmark lead, combined with higher memory bandwidth, makes it the stronger general-purpose compute engine. The K4000M is the better choice for professional workloads that demand more VRAM and higher fill rates, particularly in CAD, digital content creation, or any application that uses Vulkan. The K4000M’s 4 GB capacity and superior pixel/texture throughput are decisive for those tasks, even though it trails in the single compute test.

Strictly speaking, the GTX 580M wins the only measurable performance comparison. However, the K4000M’s architectural advantages and API support give it a functional edge in professional environments. If your software is OpenCL-bound and fits in 2 GB, choose the GTX 580M. If you need 4 GB, Vulkan support, or higher rasterization throughput, the K4000M is the only viable option here. There is no tiebreaker in the data; the choice hinges entirely on workload requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 580M scores 6389 and the K4000M scores 5986. The delta is 6.7% in favor of the GTX 580M. This is a meaningful gap for compute workloads, but not an overwhelming one. The GTX 580M’s advantage likely stems from its higher memory clock (750 MHz vs. 700 MHz) and resultant bandwidth, as well as its Fermi architecture’s efficiency in this specific test. Notably, the GTX 580M’s score ties exactly with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE (6389, 0% delta), while the K4000M’s score is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0% delta) and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.1% delta). This places both parts in similar performance tiers among their peers, but the GTX 580M sits slightly higher in the overall distribution, at the 37th percentile versus the K4000M’s 34th.

There are no other benchmark results in the data. The pixel rate and texture rate differences—12.02 vs. 9.920 GPixel/s and 48.08 vs. 39.68 GTexel/s—are calculated from clock and unit counts, not direct benchmark scores. Still, they indicate the K4000M would likely win in rasterization-bound scenarios, even though no such test is recorded. The GTX 580M’s 952.3 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is lower than the K4000M’s 1,153.9 GFLOPS, yet the GTX 580M wins the OpenCL test, suggesting the benchmark favors memory bandwidth or driver optimization over raw shader count.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M is faster, scoring 6389 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro K4000M’s 5986, a 6.7% lead.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M have more VRAM?

A: Yes, the K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5, double the GTX 580M’s 2 GB. Both use a 256-bit memory bus.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro K4000M lists Vulkan support (version 1.2.175). The GTX 580M has no Vulkan API listed.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The GTX 580M has 96.00 GB/s, while the K4000M has 89.60 GB/s. The GTX 580M’s bandwidth is 7.1% higher.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The K4000M has higher rates: 12.02 GPixel/s and 48.08 GTexel/s, compared to the GTX 580M’s 9.920 GPixel/s and 39.68 GTexel/s.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 580M ties the GeForce GTX 460 SE (6389, 0% delta), while the K4000M ties the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0% delta) and sits 0.2% behind the GTX 770M (6000).

Architecture Differences

The GTX 580M uses the GF114 chip built on Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process. It packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The K4000M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, on a 28 nm process. It has 3,540 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die, giving a much higher density of 12.0M per mm². This architectural leap explains the K4000M’s higher unit counts despite the smaller physical size.

The Kepler generation in the K4000M is newer, with a release date of May 2012 versus June 2011 for the Fermi-based GTX 580M. This generational gap is visible in the API support: the K4000M lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 580M does not. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K4000M also has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the GTX 580M’s 384 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The K4000M’s FP32 throughput is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 952.3 GFLOPS, reflecting its larger shader array. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, as those are absent from the data. The K4000M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation, while the GTX 580M is part of the GeForce 500M series.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every specification. The GTX 580M’s memory clock is 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the K4000M runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Memory size differs: 2 GB vs. 4 GB. Bandwidth is 96.00 GB/s for the GTX 580M and 89.60 GB/s for the K4000M. The K4000M has a base clock of 601 MHz with no boost, while the GTX 580M lists no base or boost clock. Shading units are 384 vs. 960, TMUs are 64 vs. 80, and ROPs are identical at 32. Pixel rate is 9.920 GPixel/s vs. 12.02 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 39.68 GTexel/s vs. 48.08 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 952.3 GFLOPS vs. 1,153.9 GFLOPS. Transistor count is 1,950 million vs. 3,540 million; die size is 332 mm² vs. 294 mm²; process node is 40 nm vs. 28 nm. Both have a 100 W TDP, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither has a launch MSRP listed. Production status is end-of-life for both. The GTX 580M’s predecessor is GeForce 400M and successor is GeForce 600M; the K4000M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.